Page 102 of 113 FirstFirst ... 25292100101102103104112 ... LastLast
Results 1,516 to 1,530 of 1689
  1. #1516
    CC Grandmaster Desmond's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The island
    Posts
    13,530
    About time. If if were employees stealing $8m from the employer, you better believe they would be in jail.


    Jail time for wage theft: Government moves ahead with plans to criminalise worker exploitation

    The federal government will move ahead with plans to criminalise serious worker exploitation within the “next month or so”, as argument rages on about how to deal with Australia’s wage theft crisis.

    Prime Minister Scott Morrison yesterday confirmed Industrial Relations Minister Christian Porter is drafting legislation which would criminalise worker exploitation, amid a push for broader reforms to Australia’s workplace laws.

    The new laws could introduce the penalty of jail time for business owners who engage in wage theft and will give effect to recommendations made by Allan Fells’ Migrant Worker Taskforce earlier this year. ...
    So what's your excuse? To run like the devil's chasing you.

    See you in another life, brotha.

  2. #1517
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,469
    I've moved this from the Australian State Politics thread, as the decision clearly has larger ramifications.

    Quote Originally Posted by idledim View Post
    As to what disciplinary action might be available in this and similar cases, including the matter of Angela Williamson, and the matter of Israel Folau, and the matter of Madeline, the only clear thing is that the rest of Australia knows less about this than one Patrick Byrom - and can not know until (at the shortest) the High Court rules in the matter of Michaela Banerji. The Court might overturn the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal which overturned the 2013 decision of the Federal Court. If it does so, then workers will most likely be more tightly bound by their organisation's Social Media policies. If the High Court upholds the Appeal, then it may well say (and I hope it does) that the implied freedom of speech it 'discovered' in the constitution in 1992 should also properly inform the Law of Contract.
    The High Court ruled on the Banerji case today:
    The high court has unanimously upheld a decision to sack a public servant, Michaela Banerji, for anonymous social media posts that criticised the government’s immigration policy. The court delivered its judgment in the landmark freedom of speech test case on Wednesday, upholding an appeal from the workers’ compensation agency Comcare which argued it was reasonable for the immigration department to sack Banerji. The case has implications for 2 million federal, state and local public servants, as the court declined to use the constitutional implied freedom of communication to rule that the sacking was unreasonable. Banerji was sacked for breaching the public service code of conduct – which requires public servants to be apolitical “at all times” – for anonymous tweets from her LaLegale Twitter account.

  3. #1518
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,469
    Any public servants on Chess Chat should bear this part of the decision in mind:
    They noted that public service rules that anyone who posts on social media should assume their identity and public employment will be revealed, an “obvious” risk that means even “so-called anonymous tweets” can damage the public service.

  4. #1519
    CC Grandmaster antichrist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,934
    When I worked in the Commonwealth Centre in Chifley Square, Sydney, from 1966 onwards there were anti-Vietnam protests against the Dept of Defence that had offices about floor 6. I joined them a few times at lunch time and then was warned it was not permitted. I don't know if was not permitted by law or only a directive. Luckily I did not take the case to the High Court.
    Zionism is racism as defined by the UN, Israel by every dirty means available steals land and water, kill Palestinian freedom fighters and civilians, and operates an apartheid system to drive more Palestinians off their land

  5. #1520
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,768
    Sorry, Bernie: America's Poorest Are Richer Than 60 Percent of Developed Countries
    BY TYLER O'NEIL, PJ Media, 26 AUGUST 2019

    On average, a person among the poorest 20 percent of Americans consumes more goods and services than the average person in Canada, Greece, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, Slovenia, Slovakia, Israel, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Chile, Hungary, Turkey, and Mexico.

    "Our study shows that because of unreported income, charity, and non-cash government benefits like Medicaid and food stamps, consumption by America’s poorest 20 percent exceeds the national averages even in developed nations like Japan, New Zealand and Denmark," James Agresti, president of Just Facts, said in a statement on the report.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  6. #1521
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Sorry, Bernie: America's Poorest Are Richer Than 60 Percent of Developed Countries
    BY TYLER O'NEIL, PJ Media, 26 AUGUST 2019

    On average, a person among the poorest 20 percent of Americans consumes more goods and services than the average person in Canada, Greece, the United Kingdom, Sweden, Australia, Spain, Portugal, Japan, Denmark, Iceland, New Zealand, Slovenia, Slovakia, Israel, South Korea, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Poland, Chile, Hungary, Turkey, and Mexico. …
    They seem to have conveniently ignored the cost of healthcare in the US

  7. #1522
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    They seem to have conveniently ignored the cost of healthcare in the US
    Thanks to decades of government meddling. Some more ideas not expressed on this site that would help: enforce price transparency in hospital billing so no surprise bills, allow right-to-try for any drug approved in an overseas developed country (e.g. insulin from Canada).
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  8. #1523
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Thanks to decades of government meddling. Some more ideas not expressed on this site that would help: enforce price transparency in hospital billing so no surprise bills, allow right-to-try for any drug approved in an overseas developed country (e.g. insulin from Canada).
    Those ideas might help, but Australia and the UK clearly show that only the government can provide decent healthcare that people can actually afford at the lowest cost to society.

  9. #1524
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Those ideas might help, but Australia and the UK clearly show that only the government can provide decent healthcare that people can actually afford at the lowest cost to society.
    Australia isn't too bad, because there is also private health insurance with a catastrophic (hospital) option allowed, not streng verboten by the government as it is in the USA. The Australian insurance is also decoupled from employment. The UK is not so great, with long waiting times, poor quality, and rationing. For example, the BBC, hardly a right-wing outlet, published NHS 'rationing leaves patients in pain'. As usual, the USA health system is attacked as a market failure, when in reality it's a government failure.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  10. #1525
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,768

    Refutung leftist myths about the free market

    4 Common Capitalism Myths Debunked
    The term Marx coined stuck and has led to some confusion about why markets actually work.
    James Davenport, FEE, 9 January 2018

    One of the most disappointing things I face as a college professor is the lack of understanding most students have regarding capitalism. The simple fact is, despite its importance to our daily lives, relatively few people have a strong grasp of what causes economic growth and why markets are so central to continuously rising standards of living.

    In my teaching, I have encountered several myths or misperceptions about capitalism from students as well as individuals outside the classroom. Dispelling these myths has become a focus of much of my teaching.

    Myth #1: Capitalism Was “Created”

    Myth #2: Capitalism Creates Poverty

    Myth #3: Capitalism Is about Capital

    Myth #4: Capitalism Creates “Winners” and “Losers”

    Markets also produce products and services that improve our lives in ways that our ancestors could never have dreamed. Just consider all the things that exist today, that didn’t a mere thirty years ago. The simple fact is that today even the poorest modern Americans have more goods and services at their disposal than kings and queens did just two hundred years ago.

    So, although individual firms may fail, and individual people may not gain great wealth, the fact is that, over the long-run, we all win by enjoying better living standards than previous generations.

    We Need Better Education

    If the United States is going to continue to see its economy grow and the living standards of its citizens improve, it is important that students are taught the basics of the economic system that has allowed them to experience Adam Smith’s “universal opulence.” Without this basic knowledge, they're easily led to believe the myths I’ve mentioned and to vote for politicians and policies that will ultimately undermine the very system that has made their lives significantly better than their ancestors, as well as better than most of their contemporaries across the globe.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  11. #1526
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Australia isn't too bad, because there is also private health insurance with a catastrophic (hospital) option allowed, not streng verboten by the government as it is in the USA. The Australian insurance is also decoupled from employment. The UK is not so great, with long waiting times, poor quality, and rationing. For example, the BBC, hardly a right-wing outlet, published NHS 'rationing leaves patients in pain'. As usual, the USA health system is attacked as a market failure, when in reality it's a government failure.
    Both the UK and Australian systems have much better outcomes than the US, which depends on the market to a much greater degree.

  12. #1527
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,469
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Australia isn't too bad, because there is also private health insurance with a catastrophic (hospital) option allowed, not streng verboten by the government as it is in the USA. ... As usual, the USA health system is attacked as a market failure, when in reality it's a government failure.
    I'm not sure what you're talking about - catastrophic health insurance is also legal in the US.

  13. #1528
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,768
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    I'm not sure what you're talking about - catastrophic health insurance is also legal in the US.
    Not for most people. The government imposes mandates about what insurance plans must cover. As the first paragraph in your cited article says:

    Catastrophic health insurance is a type of medical coverage under the Affordable Care Act. This is a type of high-deductible health plan for people under 30 or those who qualify for a "hardship exemption."
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  14. #1529
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,768
    Three Nations That Tried Socialism and Rejected It
    By LEE EDWARDS, National Review, 14 October 2019

    Israel, India, and the United Kingdom each lifted itself from economic stagnation by switching to free-market policies.

    Socialists are fond of saying that socialism has never failed because it has never been tried. But in truth, socialism has failed in every country in which it has been tried, from the Soviet Union beginning a century ago to three modern countries that tried but ultimately rejected socialism — Israel, India, and the United Kingdom.

    Israel’s socialist miracle turned out to be a mirage, India discarded socialist ideology and chose a more market-oriented path, and the United Kingdom set an example for the rest of the world with its emphasis on privatization and deregulation. Whether we are talking about the actions of an agricultural country of 1.3 billion, or the nation that sparked the industrial revolution, or a small Middle Eastern country populated by some of the smartest people in the world, capitalism tops socialism every time.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

  15. #1530
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    20,768

    Capitalism not unions is responsible for huge improvements in workers’ conditions

    The Myth That People Work Harder Under Capitalism
    Capitalism has been the great engine of unimagined prosperity and unimagined improvements in worker conditions.
    19 October 2019

    In the not so distant past, people didn't work hard, but not for the reasons the ahistorical or socialists think. There were no happy peasants laboring a few hours in the fields and spending the rest of the day in leisure. They were starving and had no energy to work hard. Far from an idyllic life, watching one’s children suffer from malnutrition and being too weak to help must have been a hellish experience.

    Camille Paglia explains that because “Everything is so easy now, [undergrads] have a sense that this is the way life has always been.” Paglia continues, “Because they've never been exposed to history, they have no idea that these are recent attainments that come from a very specific economic system."

    Capitalism, she continues, has "produced this cornucopia around us. But the young seem to believe in having the government run everything.”

    Individuals, ignorant of economics and history, believe today’s cornucopia always has been. It is understandable why they might be enamored with their favorite democratic socialist. Believing they will get to keep their cornucopia, they dream of obtaining even more as a socialist government passes seized wealth on to them. Perhaps also they dream of the world, promised by socialists, where they work less.

    Capitalism Has Made Work Good

    Contrary to mythology, 19th-century factory jobs were great jobs; today’s jobs are even better. Writing in Reason, Arthur M. Diamond Jr. shares the testimony of an eight-year-old English girl who worked 14 hours a day on a farm: "It was like heaven to me when I was taken to the town of Leeds and put to work in a cotton factory."

    The move from the farm to a better life in the factory was true in America, too.

    If you believe such testimony is merely anecdotal, Diamond relates that

    Charles Dickens, famous for defending the poor in his bestselling novels of the mid-1800s, praised the clean, comfortable working conditions of former farm girls in a Boston textile factory.

    Farm work was more exhausting and more dangerous. Those, like Lucy Larcom, seized the opportunity of a better life.

    Diamond observes that entrepreneurial capitalism “has a long history of creating new, better jobs and also of nudging old jobs toward the challenging, meaningful peak of [Maslow’s] hierarchy of needs.” Diamond gives an excellent 19th-century example:

    An early specific example of innovative dynamism improving jobs happened when kerosene replaced whale sperm oil for high-quality lighting. Collection of sperm oil required the collectors to spend days scraping spermaceti from the brain cavity of the decomposing carcass of a huge whale. Work in oil fields was far from perfect, but it was better than work in decomposing brain cavities.

    Similarly, building and repairing refrigerators is better and higher-paying work than was the dangerous work of harvesting ice in brutal temperatures.
    “The history of the 20th century is full of examples of countries that set out to redistribute wealth and ended up redistributing poverty.”
    “There’s no point blaming the tragedies of socialism on the flaws or corruption of particular leaders. Any system which allows some people to exercise unbridled power over others is an open invitation to abuse, whether that system is called slavery or socialism or something else.”—Thomas Sowell

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •